All the greats on this site say to recruit the types of players for the type of offense and defense you are running. That seems obvious enough.

But question: How do y'all go about doing that? You call the HS coach and if he tells you they run something other than what you run, you move on? Or... you take the player with a low IQ in your offense/defense but with the skills you think he needs to improve fast?

What are your strategies for recruiting the specific player type you need?

It's skills based, not really IQ-based. Sometimes you'll luck out and find a freshman that knows your off/def already, but it's not a huge deal.

FB / Press - speed speed and more speed. BH and FT shooting also help the offense, DEF obviously the defense
Zone - could slack a little on DEF but should probably look for bigs with good ATH and REB since that's a weakness
M2M - ATH and DEF are key here

Don't listen to the HS coach. You need to decide what categories you need to have for each position. Then scout and use FSS to allow you to project the ratings each recruit will have by the time you are starting them (i.e. as upperclassmen).

Different systems emphasize different things, but you won't go far wrong by simply going with the intuitive. If you say, I'd like my SG to be fast, defend well, Shoot, pass & handle the ball well, but he won't need to rebound, block shots or score in the post, then you're 90% of the way there. If you reckon that your PF better be very athletic, rebound well, score in the post and be able to block a shot or 2 on the defensive end, but won't need to shoot from the perimeter or defend the opponent's PG too often, then you'll be doing pretty well.

I always think of the system as helping me decide where to trade off when I can't find exactly the player with the potentials that I want. Some examples: in zone you cannot do without excellent REB in your post players or you'll regret it (I do); in press you will prefer higher stamina & spd players; in M2M you want to avoid any players that are bad at defense (whereas in zone or press you can mix one in). If you search the forums, you'll find more tidbits mixed in with assorted forum-facts and outright bias...that's how it goes.

A follow-up question... If there is anything I firmly believe from my first few errors on HD as a rookie it is that no offense or defense type is the "winning" offense or defense. I believe you can win with any of them....

Why would you ever decide to "install a new offense" or defense in this game? In real life, I get it. But unless you are taking over a program with 1 senior and 10 open scholarships or something extreme... I just don't see the benefit in switching the style of offense or defense that the returning payers already know. Right?

Just because you can win with all of them doesn't mean there's not one that individual coaches are more comfortable with than others.

Personally, I switched defenses on one team last year because I already had a flex/man team and didn't want a second one. I figured flex and press both supposedly required speed, so maybe they'd play nice together

Posted by craigaltonw on 4/9/2013 12:17:00 AM (view original):I just wouldn't take a job at a fastbreak school. Problem solved.

its not always that simple... for example, there are very few FB teams, and i wanted to run FB just about everywhere (its still new to me). if i restricted myself to teams already playing FB id have very little to choose from. besides, i didnt want to leave the teams i already had, just wanted to change things up after a long time.

its perfectly reasonable to never want to change off/def, its not necessary, and the pain is usually not worth it on short stopovers, where the goal is moving up quickly. but there are a bunch of good reasons to do it, too - you might be somewhere a long time and really want to play a certain set, maybe you need a new challenge, or want to try a new strategy - its very common when people aren't just trying to move up ASAP, and even decently common when they are (you can be way more proficient with some things than others).

high school IQ doesnt matter much unless you absolutely have to start the guy as a FR - I use it as a tiebreaker at times

the different systems dont differ that much - yes tailor your team to the system - BUT get the best players you can get. It is almost never wise to pass on a better player - a clearly better player - because there is another guy who has skills for your system or because that better player isnt at a position of need. There are exceptions, but if you are - say - short on bigs but have a chance to grab an excellent (for your team's level) SF, you are likely better adding the excellent SF than adding a bench level big.

Posted by fd343ny on 4/9/2013 8:21:00 AM (view original):high school IQ doesnt matter much unless you absolutely have to start the guy as a FR - I use it as a tiebreaker at times

the different systems dont differ that much - yes tailor your team to the system - BUT get the best players you can get. It is almost never wise to pass on a better player - a clearly better player - because there is another guy who has skills for your system or because that better player isnt at a position of need. There are exceptions, but if you are - say - short on bigs but have a chance to grab an excellent (for your team's level) SF, you are likely better adding the excellent SF than adding a bench level big.

i pretty much agree with this. it seems often the reality in lower divisions is, unless one of those freak dudes who somehow slips through low d1 is available, that there are a bunch of guys around the same talent level. when its close, team planning is really of utmost priority. a **** big vs an awesome sf, yeah thats easy - but a good big vs a slightly better sf, which i think is generally more realistic (scout more if you cant at least get a decent guy at the position you need), thats easy too - take the big, if you need him much more.

i think getting good team chemistry has really risen in perceived importance over the last few years, but its still underrated, IMO. with potential, team planning in recruiting became the most important factor in success (IMO) - previously, you could adapt through practice planning, and team plan after the fact, if you will. in recruiting, projecting your team forward a couple seasons, grabbing the guys who will fit well with the core at later times, that is very important, and also one of the more difficult parts of the game. so when the talent gap is big - i agree, you have to go with talent. but well constructed teams with a little less talent will routinely beat more talented teams who are poorly constructed and/or played (the two so often go together). so its critical to strike the right balance, and i think its most often the case that you have relatively suitable candidates at all positions, at least after that first guy or two, so i lean towards need over talent. of course, ill never pass on that one killer guy, should i be able to grab him, but the rest of my scholarships are pretty clearly devoted to specific causes.

i always say, never go into recruiting without knowing exactly what you need, and the acceptable variations... then adjust for the reality of the recruiting generation. dont look at recruits first and bias yourself by what is available.

gillespie... I like the idea of recruiting with specific holes to fill in mind. And I love the idea of building team chemistry and not settling on talented individual players who don't fit the team needs.

However, what do you say to adjusting your team chemistry to the recruits? I guess my question depends on recruiting style. But I would rather put my eggs in several baskets when I'm recruiting just in case the perfect-fit player I have targeted does not work out. Chances are that I wont get that player... if he wants to play far from home and I'm 10 miles away, for example.

At what point do you adjust your "needs" to the recruits that might originally be a back-up option for you?